University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

April 2016 Adoption of Software Packages in University Libraries in Margaret B. Edem Dr (Mrs) , Nigeria, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac Part of the Library and Information Science Commons

Edem, Margaret B. Dr (Mrs), "Adoption of Software Packages in University Libraries in Nigeria" (2016). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 1342. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1342 Adoption of Software Packages in University Libraries in Nigeria

Dr (Mrs) Ruth Simon Bassey University Librarian, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria [email protected]

Abstract

This study used a survey design to investigate the adoption of software packages in Nigerian university libraries. The study was guided by seven research questions. The population included all the 127 University Librarians in Nigerian university libraries; while the sample used for the study included 58 university librarians cutting across the six geopolitical zones in the country and reflecting the ownership status of federal, state and private universities. An instrument called Software Adoption Questionnaire (SAQ) was developed by the researcher for this study. This SAQ was validated by three librarians from the University of Calabar. The data gathered and collated was analysed using percentages, pie chart and bar chart. The findings of the study indicated the software packages adopted in Nigerian university libraries. The findings also indicated that KOHA is the most widely adopted software package and the most widely used presently; and that the level of automation of university libraries in Nigeria is very low. The findings also indicated the level of automation of the core library modules; how the different levels of automation of the core library modules differ amongst the different modules; how the level of automation of the university libraries in Nigeria differ amongst the private, state and federal universities in Nigeria, amongst others. Recommendations were made to the different stakeholders on the adoption of software packages in libraries in Nigerian universities.

Keywords: software, libraries, automation, library modules

Introduction

Globally, the nature of human beings is that of constantly looking for ways of making things easier and making life comfortable. This underlying universal factor, which drives inventions, innovations and strategies, is also applicable in the library setting where deliberate steps are taken to make the use of the library easier and more comfortable for both the library staff and the users. Automation of the library is a step that is in sync with this global craving for ease and comfort.

1

Software packages are relevant in a library that is automated. According to Nwalo (2002), automation of the library refers to the use of computers in rendering library services which were hitherto executed manually. Sharma (2007) sees library automation as the use of computers, associated peripheral media such as magnetic tapes, disks, optical media etc and utilization of computer based products and services in the performance of all types of library functions and operations. Giving an operational definition to the concept, the author of this paper defines automation of the library as the application of Information and Communication Technology

(ICT) in the operation of the different processes and functions of the library to attain efficiency, accurate reporting and improved services. Core services of the library like circulation, cataloguing, acquisition, serials management, reference services and special collection readily benefit from automation.

A computer system which is the core component of ICT runs on software, which can be system software or application software. Software is a generic term for the various programmes used to operate computer systems and related devices. While the system software provides the platform for the computer to function and communicate effectively with the application software, application software on its part is a computer programme designed to use a computer system to perform specific functions (Wikipedia Encyclopedia). There is a vast array of application software packages as a result of the assortment of tasks and functions executed using a computer system. However, what determines the choice of software is the relevance, user-friendliness, adaptability, inter-operability, general efficiency, amongst other considerations (Ukachi,

Nwachukwu and Onuoha, 2014).

2

There is an avalanche of software available for use in the library. These range from the proprietary software, which are subscription based, to the Open Source Software (OSS). The software available for selection also includes foreign brands and indigenously developed brands.

In India for example, some library software of foreign origin that are well known include ALICE for Windows, Virtua, Techlib Plus etc, while the Libsys ranks high amongst the indigenous packages. Other software packages indigenously developed and used in India include

Granthalaya, Maitreyi, Sanjay, DELMS, DELDO, TLMS etc (Husain and Ansari, 2007). Some of the software packages adopted by libraries in Nepal include CDS/ISIS, Lib Info, WINISIS,

LMS, ALICE for Windows, SOUL etc (Sharma, 2007).

The concept of library automation is also embraced by university libraries in Nigeria. and are reported to have achieved full automation of their libraries, while University of Agriculture, Abeokuta and attained partial automation (Okewale and Adetimirin, 2011). This gives a picture of the possibility of having some libraries that are not automated at all. This picture justifies the need to conduct a study to ascertain the level of automation of the core library modules of the universities in Nigeria, which is one of the objectives of the current study.

Researchers have conducted studies on the use of software packages in some universities in

Nigeria. Some of the software packages used in libraries in universities in Nigeria include

TINLIB, ALICE, X-LIB, GLAS, CDS/ISIS, KOHA, SLAM, Liberty 3, Docuware etc (Adogbeji,

Onohwakpor and Sylvester, n.d; Okewale and Adetimirin, 2011; Udoh-Ilomechine and

Idiegbeyan-ose, 2011; Obajemu, Osagie, Akinade and Ekere, 2013). These studies were however

3 limited in scope as they involved a fewer number of sampled universities. The current study sought to fill this gap by expanding the sample size to establish the software packages adopted in university libraries in Nigeria.

Furthermore, Obajemu et al (2013) conducted a study on the use of library software products in

Nigeria. The study covered 50 libraries in Nigeria including 22 federal, state and private universities; 11 polytechnic libraries; 3 colleges of education libraries, and 14 research institutions’ libraries. The researchers reported in their findings that “some of the respondents are quite aware of the various types of software being paraded in Nigerian markets.” This study did not establish the specific software packages adopted by these 50 libraries as it merely established whether or not the librarians were aware of the existence of such software packages. The present study focused on the universities and sought to identify the specific software packages adopted by university libraries in Nigeria.

In a study on library automation and virtual library development in four academic Libraries in

Oyo State, Gbadamosi (2011) reported that none of the four libraries investigated was fully automated. The academic libraries used for the study included those of Emmanuel Alayande

College of Education, Oyo; Federal College of Education (Special), Oyo; Federal School of

Surveying, Oyo; and Ajayi Crowther University, Oyo. This finding presents yet another justification for a similar study to be conducted to establish the status of automation of the libraries in universities in Nigeria.

4

More so, demographic variables, like ownership and location etc, have been established to have influence on dependent variables being studied (Horowit and Spector, 2005; Maliki and Uche,

2007; Awoleye, Siyanbola and Oladipo, 2008). The present study also considered the demographic variables, such as ownership of the university and location, on the adoption of software packages in libraries in universities in Nigeria.

Research questions:

i. What are the software packages adopted in libraries in universities in Nigeria?

ii. What is the level of automation of university libraries in Nigeria?

iii. What is the level of automation of the core library modules of the universities in

Nigeria?

iv. How do the different levels of automation of the core library modules of

universities in Nigeria differ amongst the different modules?

v. How does the level of automation of the university libraries in Nigeria differ

amongst the private, state and federal universities in Nigeria

vi. How does the level of automation of the core library modules differ amongst the

private, state and federal universities in Nigeria?

vii. How does the level of automation of the core library modules differ amongst

universities based on geopolitical zones?

Research method

This study adopted survey design; it was situated in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. There are

41 federal universities, 25 state universities and 61 private universities in Nigeria (National

Universities Commission (a); National Universities Commission (b); National Universities

5

Commission (c)). This implies a total of 127 universities in Nigeria. The population of the study included the 127 University Librarians in all the universities in Nigeria. The study adopted purposeful random sampling to choose 64 university librarians as the sample for the study; but

58 copies of the questionnaire from 58 university librarians were retrieved and found usable. The

58 university librarians cut across universities in the six geopolitical zones in the country while also reflecting the ownership status of federal, state and private universities. The sample of the study was therefore 58 university librarians. The tables 1 and 2 below indicate the segmentation based on geopolitical zones and ownership status of the universities whose librarians were used as the sample; and the names of the universities whose librarians were used as the sample for the study respectively.

The instrument used for data collection was a questionnaire called Software Adoption

Questionnaire (SAQ). This instrument, which was developed by the researcher, had two parts labelled parts I and II. Part I sought to gather demographic information including name of the university, state of location, geopolitical zone, ownership etc; while the part II sought to elicit data on the level of automation of the library, the level of automation of the different modules in the library, the software that had ever been used in the library, the software that was being used as at the time of the study, amongst others. The instrument was validated by three librarians from the University of Calabar.

Copies of the questionnaire were administered to the University Librarians during a meeting of

Committee of University Librarians of Nigerian Universities (CULNU) which held at the

University of Benin in April, 2015. While all the respondents were encouraged to return the

6 questionnaire during the meeting, the researcher also attached to the questionnaire self-addressed stamped envelope for the respondents to send the questionnaire by post if they could not fill in and return the instrument during the meeting. Copies of the questionnaire with self-addressed stamped envelope were also sent to the sample respondents that could not attend the meeting.

The data gathered and collated was analysed using percentages, pie chart and bar chart.

Table 1: Table showing the segmentation based on geopolitical zones and ownership status of the sampled universities

Geopolitical zones Federal State Private

North West 6 3 1

North East 3 2 2

North Central 5 1 2

South West 4 4 6

South East 2 2 3

South South 5 4 3

7

Table 2: Table showing all the 58 universities used as the sample for the study

Geopolitical S/N Universites State zone ownership 1 , Zaria North West Federal 2 Nigerian Defence Academy Kaduna North West Federal 3 Sokoto North West State Kebbi State University of Science and 4 Technology, Aliero Kebbi North West State 5 Federal University, Dutsin-Ma Katsina North West Federal 6 Federal University, Dutse Jigawa North West Federal 7 Alqalam University, Katsina Katsina North West Private 8 University Kaduna North West State 9 Bayero University, Kano Kano North West Federal 10 Usman Dan Fodio University Sokoto North West Federal 11 University of Lagos Lagos South West Federal 12 Anonymous South West Private 13 Oyo South West Federal 14 Adekunle Ajasin University Ondo South West State 15 Modibbo Adama University of Technology, Yola Adamawa North East Federal 16 Yobe North East State 17 Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi Bauchi North East Federal 18 Federal University, Kashere Gombe North East Federal 19 Gombe North East State 20 , Wukari Taraba North East Private 21 American Adamawa North East Private 22 Kwara North Central Federal 23 Federal University, Lokoja Kogi North Central Federal 24 FCT, Abuja North Central Federal 25 , Markudi Benue North Central State 26 Plateau North Central Federal 27 , Malete Kwara North Central State 28 Federal University of Technology, Minna Niger North Central Federal 29 Salem University, Lokoja Kogi North Central Private 30 Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta Ogun South West Federal 31 , Igbesa Ogun South West Private 32 Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye Ogun South West State 33 Redeemer's University, Ede Osun South West Private 34 , Iwo Osun South West Private 35 Ajayi Crowther University, Ibadan Oyo South West Private 36 Pan Atlantic University Lagos South West Private 37 Tai Solarin University of Education, Ijebu Ode Ogun South West State

8

Table 2 contd.

Geopolitical S/N Universites State zone ownership 38 Obafemi Awolowo University Osun South West Federal 39 , Ado-Ekiti Ekiti South West State 40 Federal University of Technology, Owerri Imo South East Federal 41 Madonna University, Okija Anambra South East Private 42 Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University Anambra South East State 43 University of Nigeria, Nsukka South East Federal 44 , Umunya Anambra South East Private 45 , Uturu Abia South East State 46 , Enugu Enugu South East Private University of Science and Technology, 47 Rivers South South State 48 University of Calabar Cross River South South Federal 49 Federal University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun Delta South South Federal 50 , Ekpoma Edo South South State Ignatius Ajuru University of Education, Port 51 Harcourt Rivers South South State 52 University of Benin Edo South South Federal 53 Samuel Adegboyega University,Ogwa. Edo South South Private 54 , Ogume Delta South South Private 55 University of Port Harcourt Rivers South South Federal 56 Benson Idahosa University, Edo South South Private 57 , Wilberforce Island Bayelsa South South State 58 Akwa Ibom South South Federal

Results and discussion

Research question one: What are the software packages adopted in libraries in universities in

Nigeria?

Chart 1 indicates the number of university libraries that have ever used the indicated software packages. KOHA has the highest level of adoption as it has been used by a majority of university libraries in Nigeria. Chart 2 confirms KOHA as not only being the most widely adopted, but also

9 the most widely used currently, as the chart 2 indicates the software packages that are currently being used by the libraries in Nigerian universities.

Chart 1: Software packages adopted in university libraries in Nigeria

28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 28 12 10 8 6 8 10 8 9 4 7 7 5 2 3 2 3 2 0 1

Chart 2: Software packages currently in use in university libraries in Nigeria

20 18 16 14 12 10 20 8 6 4 5 5 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 0

10

Research question two: What is the level of automation of university libraries in Nigeria?

Chart 3: Level of automation of university libraries in Nigeria Full Automation Not Automated 5% 20%

Full Automation Partial Automation Not Automated Partial Automation 75%

Chart 3 indicates that 75% of university libraries in Nigeria are partially automated, 20% are not automated at all, while a paltry 5% are fully automated. This does not present a good picture of adoption of software packages in Nigerian universities, as the implication is that 95% of libraries in Nigerian universities are either not automated or partially automated. 5% full automation represents a very low level of automation of libraries in Nigerian universities.

Research question three: What is the level of automation of the core library modules of the universities in Nigeria?

Charts 4 to 9 indicate the level of automation of each of the six modules in libraries in Nigerian universities.

Chart 4: Level of automation of Circulation module

Not Automated Full Automation 34% 27% Full Automation Partial Automation

Partial Automation Not Automated 39%

11

In chart 4, only 27% of circulation module of libraries in Nigerian universities is fully automated; leaving 73% as being either not automated or partially automated. Chart 5 shows that

56% of cataloguing module in libraries in Nigerian universities is either not automated or partially automated as only 44% of this module has full automation.

Chart 5: Level of automation of Cataloguing module

Not Automated Full Automation 25% 44%

Full Automation Partial Automation Not Automated

Partial Automation 31%

The status of acquisition module is even gloomier as only 14% of this module is fully automated as shown in chart 6. This leaves 86% as being partially automated or not automated. The status of automation of the other modules is as indicated in their respective charts.

Chart 6: Level of automation of Acquisition module

Not Automated Full Automation 47% 14%

Full Automation Partial Automation Not Automated

Partial Automation 39%

12

Chart 7: Level of automation of Serials Management module Full Automation Not Automated 15% 42%

Full Automation Partial Automation Not Automated

Partial Automation 43%

Chart 8: Level of automation of Reference Services module Full Automation 14% Not Automated 47% Full Automation Partial Automation Not Automated Partial Automation 39%

Chart 9: Level of automation of Special Collection module Full Automation 5% Partial Automation 34%

Full Automation Partial Automation Not Automated

Not Automated 61%

13

Research question four: How do the different levels of automation of the core library modules of universities in Nigeria differ amongst the different modules?

Chart 10: Full Automation of the different modules Reference Special Collection 11% 4% Circulation 23% Circulation Serials 13% Cataloguing Acquisition Acquisition 12% Serials Reference Cataloguing Special Collection 37%

Chart 11: Partial Automation of the different modules Special Collection Circulation 15% 18% Circulation Reference Cataloguing 17% 14% Cataloguing Acquisition Serials

Serials Reference 19% Acquisition Special Collection 17%

Chart 12: Not Automated status of the different modules Circulation Special Collection 13% 24% Cataloguing Circulation 10% Cataloguing Reference Acquisition 18% Acquisition 18% Serials Reference Special Collection

Serials 17%

14

This research question compared the different modules based on their level of automation. Chart

10 indicates that out of all the different modules with full automation, cataloguing module has the highest level of full automation in Nigerian university libraries with 37% of all the modules with full automation. This is followed by circulation, serials, acquisition, reference and special collection, in that order. Similarly, chart 11 shows that serials management module is the module with the highest amongst modules with partial level of automation. This is followed by circulation, reference and acquisition, special collection and cataloguing. In the category of not automated modules, Special collection comes top, followed by reference and acquisition, serials, circulation and cataloguing, in that order.

Research question five: How does the level of automation of the university libraries in Nigeria differ amongst the private, state and federal universities in Nigeria?

This research question considered the level of automation of the entire university libraries in

Nigeria based on the ownership status of the universities. The results are as presented in charts

13 to 15. It can be seen from the charts that while 19% of private university libraries have full automation, no federal and state university libraries have full automation.

Chart 13: Level of Automation of Federal Universities Not Automated Full Automation 12% 0%

Full Automation Partial Automation

Partial Automation Not Automated 88%

15

Chart 14: Level of Automation of State Universities Not Automated Full Automation 28% 0%

Full Automation Partial Automation Not Automated Partial Automation 72%

Chart 15: Level of Automation of Private Universities Full Automation Not Automated 19% 25%

Full Automation Partial Automation Not Automated Partial Automation 56%

Research question six: How does the level of automation of the core library modules differ amongst the private, state and federal universities in Nigeria?

Chart 16 presents the results of the levels of automation of the different modules and based on the ownership of the universities. Chart 16 indicates that out of the entire circulation module with full automation, 31% are in private university libraries, 22% from state and 28% from federal university libraries.

16

Chart 16

200%

180%

160% 63%

140%

38% 44% 120% 38% 44% 31% 100% 38% 44% 19% 31% 19%78% Private 80% 31% 56% 28% 28% 22% 67% State 31% 25% 61% 22% 60% 39% 33% Federal 39% 44% 40% 22% 33% 19% 31% 60% 60% 38%60% 48% 52%48% 20% 40% 40% 36% 28% 32% 11% 32% 20%20% 11% 12% 6% 19% 8% 4%

0% 0%

Full Full Full Full Full Full

Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial

Not Automated Not Automated Not Automated Not Automated Not Automated Not Automated Circulation Cataloguing Acquisition Serial Reference Special Collection

Research question seven: How does the level of automation of the core library modules differ amongst universities based on geopolitical zones?

Table 3 summarizes the results in respect of this research question. It is evident from the table that of all the university libraries in Nigeria with full automation of the circulation module, 50%

17 are from the North Central, followed by 40% from the North West while the South East has no circulation module with full automation.

Table 3: Table showing the level of automation of the core library modules differ amongst universities based on geopolitical zones North North North South South South West East Central West East South Full 40% 29% 50% 21% 0% 23% Partial 40% 14% 25% 50% 43% 46% Circulation Not Automated 20% 57% 25% 29% 57% 31% Full 50% 29% 63% 57% 29% 31% Partial 40% 14% 13% 29% 43% 38% Cataloguing Not Automated 10% 57% 25% 14% 29% 31% Full 20% 0% 13% 21% 0% 15% Partial 40% 14% 25% 50% 57% 38% Acquisition Not Automated 40% 86% 63% 29% 43% 46% Full 20% 0% 25% 21% 0% 15% Partial 50% 43% 38% 50% 57% 23% Serials Not Automated 30% 57% 38% 29% 43% 62% Full 20% 14% 13% 14% 14% 8% Partial 40% 14% 63% 43% 57% 23% Reference Not Automated 40% 71% 25% 43% 29% 69% Full 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 8% Special Partial 40% 14% 63% 36% 29% 23% Collection Not Automated 60% 86% 38% 50% 71% 69%

Conclusion and recommendations

This study has established the status of automation of university libraries in Nigeria. The findings of the study have also established the level of automation of six major modules of

Nigerian university libraries, and have also segmented this status of automation of the different modules into federal, state and private universities, and based on geopolitical zones. Though only 20% of university libraries in Nigeria are not automated at all, it is thought provoking that only 5% of university libraries in Nigeria are fully automated. This leaves those with partial automation at 75%. This implies that 95% of libraries in Nigerian universities are either not

18 automated or partially automated. Going by the percentage of libraries in Nigerian universities with full automation, it can be concluded that the level of adoption of software packages in university libraries in Nigeria, cutting across federal, state and private universities, is very low.

Based on the findings of the study, it is recommended that:

1. Management of the different universities should embrace the concept of automation of university libraries and give moral, financial and political support to the implementation of this innovation.

2. The government, especially the National Universities Commission (NUC) in liaison with the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), should ensure the enactment and implementation of policies and guidelines on automation of Nigerian university libraries.

3. University librarians should update their Information and Communication Technology

(ICT) skills and adopt the policies that facilitate the utilization of ICT in rendering library services to the clients.

4. Library staff should be trained on ICT to enhance their embracing the deployment of ICT in the library and thus improving the overall efficiency of the library.

5. University libraries should aim at full automation of the libraries to reap the benefits of such level of automation.

19

References Awoleye, O., Siyanbola, W. & Oladipo, O. (2008). Adoption assessment of Internet usage amongst undergraduates in Nigeria Universities – A case study approach. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation 3(1). Retrieved on 25/05/08 from http://www.jotmi.org/index.php/GT/article/viewFile/cas11/121 Ayogbeji, O. B., Onohwakpor, J. E. & Sylvester, A. O. (n.d). Software Selection and Acquisition in Nigerian University and Special Libraries: The Way Forward. Retrieved on 15/02/2015 from http://cis.uws.ac.uk/research/journal/V11/softwareselection.pdf Gbadamosi, B. O. (2011). Assessing Library Automation and Virtual Library Development in Four Academic Libraries in Oyo, Oyo State, Nigeria. US-China Education Review, 8(5), (May), 711 - 717. Retrieved on 06/02/2015 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520686.pdf Horowitz, J. B & Spector, L. (2005). Is there a difference between private and public education on college performance. of Educational Review, 24(2), 189 – 195. retrieved 31/05/09 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB9- 4D16SS5- 1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_v ersion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8c9d01e71742d8351a700e9127eb37df Husain, S. & Ansari, M. A. (2007). Library Automation Software Packages in India: A Study of the Cataloguing Modules of Alice for Windows, Libsys and Virtua. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 54, (September), 146 – 151. Retrieved on 23/02/2015 from http://egranthalaya.nic.in/ALIS.pdf Maliki, A. E. & Uche, R. D. (2007). Students’ Background Variables and Utilization of Library Resources among Secondary School Students’ in Southern Senatorial District of Cross River State, Nigeria. Stud. Tribes Tribals, 5(1), 21 – 23. Retrieved on 30/01/2015 from http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T%20&%20T/T%20&%20T-05-0-000-000- 2007-Web/T%20&%20T-05-1-001-2007-Abst-PDF/T%20&%20T-05-1-021-07-096- Maliki-A-E/T&T-05-1-021-07-096-Maliki-A-E-Tt.pdf National Universities Commission (a): Federal Universities. Retrieved on 02/06/2015 from http://nuc.edu.ng/nigerian-univerisities/federal-univeristies/ National Universities Commission (b): State Universities. Retrieved on 02/06/2015 from http://nuc.edu.ng/nigerian-univerisities/state-univerisity/ National Universities Commission (c): Private Universities. Retrieved on 02/06/2015 from http://nuc.edu.ng/nigerian-univerisities/private-univeristies/ Nwalo, K. I. N. (2002). Fundamentals of Library Routines. Ibadan: Stirling Horden Publishers. Cited in Adegbore, A. M. (2010). Automation in Two Nigerian University Libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Retrieved on 06/02/2015 from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1442&context=libphilprac&sei- redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dsoftware%2Bus ed%2Bin%2Blibraries%2Bin%2Bnigeria%2Bpdf%26client%3Dms- rim%26hl%3Den%26channel%3Dbrowser%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF- 8%26prmd%3Divns%26ei%3DDKjyVKanNMT0PNv2gOAL%26start%3D10%26sa%3D N#search=%22software%20used%20libraries%20nigeria%20pdf%22

20

Obajemu, S., Osagie, J. N., Akinade, H. O. J. & Ekere, F. C. (2013). Library Software Products in Nigeria: A Survey of Uses and Assessment. International Journal of Library and Information Science, 5(5), (June), 113 – 125. Retrieved on 23/02/2015 from http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1379697220_Obajemu%20et%20al.pdf Okewale, O. & Adetimirin, A. (2011). Information Use of Software Packages in Nigerian University Libraries. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 11(3), 211 – 224. Retrieved on 13/02/2015 from http://www.jiti.com/v11/jiti.v11n3.211-224.pdf Sharma, S. V. (2007). Library Automation Software Packages used in Academic Libraries of Nepal: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources, New Delhi. Retrieved on 16/02/2015 from http://eprints.rclis.org/22581/1/Sabitri%20final%20thesis.pdf Udo-Ilomechine, Q. & Idiegbeyan-Ose, J. (2011). Selection Criteria for Computer Software and Hardware: A Case Study of Six University Libraries in Nigeria. Chinese Librarianship: An International Electronic Journal, 32. Retrieved on 05/02/2015 from http://www.white- clouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl32UI.pdf Ukachi, N. B., Nwachukwu, V. N. & Onuoha, U. D. (2014). Library Automation and Use of Open Source Software to Maximize Library Effectiveness. Information and Knowledge Management, 3(4), 74 – 82. Retrieved on 14/02/2015 from http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/IKM/article/viewFile/10939/11242 Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Software. Retrieved on 13/03/2015 from http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software

21